On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 05:34:48PM -0600, Mathew Ryden wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "toad" <matthew at toseland.f9.co.uk> > > > ARKs would be extremely helpful in improving the efficiency of the network > for > > people with 24x7 nodes whose IP addresses change relatively frequently. > > > > Is the following correct?: > > They would probably be useful if the network itself was really working right > now :) They would improve routing. They are applicable to nearly all permanent freenet nodes. > > > An ARK is actually SSK@<node key>/<node address>, contents of which is the > new > > node address. Since we never need to look up a node address from just the > node > > key, this saves a lot of time messing with pseudo-updating. > > When Fred's CP for a node falls sufficiently low (or it backs off?), it > looks up > > the above URL to try to get the new address of the node, if it succeeds, > it > > replaces the node address. > > An ARK is used to look up the address, thus an address can't be one of the > things needed for it. But the current protocol sends the network address along with the public key. Which we will have to do anyway in announcement. What is the advantage of not sending the current network address of the node? I was under the impression that the SOLE purpose of ARKs was to allow semitransient nodes to participate fully in the network. > > > Oskar said in January that ARK = SSK@<pubkey>/<counter>. Is there any > reason > > to use a counter? If you use a counter, you have to store the counter for > each > > reference, and ideally include it when sending the pubkey/address pair > through > > FNP. > > Yes. A counter is required. See above. > > > Any other major problems preventing implementation of ARKs, apart from > lack of > > skilled-developer-time? > > <skipping this question> > > -Mathew
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
